Well, he has finally done it at long last. The book is finished. He presented me late last night with a copy. I read it and wept.

Today I am unsure as to what can be made of it though. But he would have predicted that I am sure. Despite his newfangled terminology (I would have expected that of him) I did find the case histories fascinating and his interpretations deeply thought provoking But as to whether he has produced a satisfactory scientific basis for the analytical encounter I am not really competent to judge. The statistics (well you know what they say about that) I can only take on trust. But if his claims are true then presumably some other body will be able to substantiate his figures through the use of his Mu questions. I doubt myself if that will happen though. He has long been ignored and isolated by too many of his medical colleagues for me to believe that they could all be wrong in their assessment of his work and professional standing.

There remains of course the question of his theory - his damned Theory I could see it far enough. Over the past ten years or so I have been watching him and his theory evolve and to be honest it has terrified me utterly most of the time and then when we lost David our fifteen year old son to lighter gas fuel in the midst of all his theorising that almost broke me. He at that time so much loved his David that he became ever more driven in his quest for a solution to the task he had long set himself. His solution now lies within this text Love and Logic A text that will stand, for all time now I suppose as a memorial to our broken marriage and our lost son. It deserves to fair well if only for the sake of David's memory.

But I have my doubts. The theory that he has constructed on the grounds of the individual responses to his Mu questions certainly sounds a bit far fetched to me. His starting point appears to be that of Lacan both see the Ego as an imaginary product built on the image of the mother Proposition 8.02 reminds us that the Self, adopted in the midst of the mother's look of acceptance and constructed on the image of her bodily form, is one that conforms busily to her imagined desires He is forever reminding others I am told in his clinical practice that in the presentation of self to self there is no face. Visually we are all permanently incomplete at an individual level and yet totally complete from the point of view of each other. Our sense of self can only ever be completed then, either through an identificatory encounter with some counterpart Other or one with our own mirror image Either way the I is an Other for each and every one of us. Perhaps his avoidance of the term "Person" throughout this text is a reflection of these thoughts and is a conscious effort on his part to jolt us out of our conventional ways of thinking as regards the nature of our true existence. His preferred term of reference is "Speaking Subject" understandable when he maintains that the object of study within any analytical encounter ought to be the speaking speech This phrase jarred when I first read it "speaking speech." It almost sounds as if the speech is doing the speaking and not the speaker. Is he hinting at the possibility that with the publication of this text the death of the Speaking Subject as we know it is nigh at hand? Strange sounding stuff this when you have been brought up by a Mum steeped in the Judeo-Christian traditions of the Peterhead Brethren. But then again it has long been accepted that Freud's original insights as regards slips of the tongue directly brings into question the truth of our traditional beliefs ( philosophical or otherwise ) about the nature of our selves and our autonomy So perhaps he is not being all that original in hinting at the death of the Speaking Subject. He is however being totally original as regards the analytical encounter, in reducing the matter of the speaking speech ( or the subject behind the speaking speech ) to a particular member mode of one of the ma or da sets of sixteenfold Mu modes This is the truly revolutionary part of his work and if it proves correct then we will all have to face immense changes both within ourselves and our individual Communities.

So what of his theory and how does it compare with all the theories of other past masters of the couch. In his text he has openly appropriated terms from Freud, Jung and Lacan in an effort to generate a theory fit enough to explain his Mu findings. But do not be deceived by these appropriations. His theory although grounded on some of these past master's original insights is in the final analysis radically different from any that they ever managed to produce. Take Freud's Oedipal Complex - that sea of contradictory feelings in which the child desires one parent and views the other as a potentially hostile rival in the midst of feelings of castration anxiety for boys and penis envy for girls - and its subsequent resolution through the child renouncing their desire for their preferred parent whilst identifying with their rival and the founding (F)Other of the Law of their Land. Freud's Id follows simply then as the place of the renounced desires, his Ego as the home of the adopted rival and his Superego as the chambers of the Law of the Land - extremely elegant a viewpoint but is it true? Apparently not when the Mu findings contained in this text are taken into consideration. Every Speaking Subject, according to the Mu statistics irrespective of their sex enters the Oedipal triangle with thoughts of not having it. Freud was wrong; "Anatomy plays no part in the developmental psychology of any Speaking Being." There is no difference between the sexes as regards thoughts of having, irrespective of whether they lack or possess a penis.

Lacan it appears was far nearer the mark then when he stated that both sexes suffer from a sense of lack upon entering the Oedipal triangle. But what of his claim that once within the triangle both see the mother as the preferred parent both identify with the opposing Father of the Symbolic Law and both take their leave through an assumption or refusal of the phallic position. Unfortunately for Lacan the Mu statistics do not bear this viewpoint out. Mums and Dads are equally likely to be the preferred parent for either sex and upon taking leave of the Oedipal triangle all appear to have had their original sense of lack re-inforced - all don't have it, all are not it and none of them want to be looked at.

Consequently the theories of both Freud and Lacan are redundant then when it comes to providing a satisfactory explanation for the individual responses to the Mu questions. Not entirely redundant though since several of their major concepts still remain within the Theory presented here as such a satisfactory explanation. Take a look at the following overview.

The Self, or rather the sense of Self, being considered the product of a primary identificatory act occurring within the midst of the (m)Other's look of acceptance, is thought first to appear somewhere between the ages of 8 and 18 months. The assumption of Speech exposes such individuals to a prohibition against all acts contrary to the desires of the (m)Other. Some react by conforming constantly to these desires, others perform acts only on occasions contrary to these desires whilst the remainder throw caution to the wind and go their own way. In the going of their own way they inevitably reap the loss of the (m)Other's look of acceptance and fall headlong into a forlorn, lonely state in which compensatory thoughts of some all-embracing (M)Other inevitably arise. A return to the (m)Other results quite naturally in a repetition of the above routine and precipitates an endless search for this imaginary all-embracing (M)Other. This routine is only finally broken with the individual's introduction to the (f)Other - the preferred object of the (m)Other's desire This catastrophe precipitates a secondary identificatory act in which each individual identifies then with the rejecting (m)Other and with their desire for the preferred (f)Other. The effect of this identification is to bring them into immediate rivalry with the (m)Other over the new found (f)Other's attention. In their ensuing approach to the (f)Other they are either ignored or elevated graciously and tutored totally or partially in the ways of becoming the preferred object of the (f)Other's desire  All however eventually find themselves being cast aside in preference for the (m)Other or cast down and "castrated" by the truely now all powerful (f)Other.

Such is the simplicity of this theory. The only complication being the fact that the terms (m)Other and (f)Other are considered to be symbolic variables capable of being occupied by members of either sex. This complication increases immensely the explanatory power of this simple scheme of thought. You will find pleasure I am sure in grappling with the implications of this complication when it comes to comprehending the mechanism of the psychological sexing of all Speaking Beings. Part of this mechanism involves the Prim and Prime modes introduced and described here for the first time. If they prove to be as commonplace as the present Mu statistics confirm then this will make Freud's conjecture backed by Lacan of an innate bisexual disposition being fundamental to the sexing of all Speaking Beings totally redundant. Likewise Jung's notion of Anima and Animus Images being active within the minds of both sexes becomes equally redundant as does his notion of a Collective Unconscious since all are shown here to enter this world with an "Imaginary - not yet full - but empty"

Having trawled through the analytical literature in preparation for writing this introduction I found that as a body of work the Kleinian one was the only one capable of surviving a confrontation with the Mu statistics. In terms of these findings the Imaginary world of Klein proves to be merely the effect of the workings of the primeval turnings of the pre-Oedipal circuit of Mu. Unfortunately for Klein though, her central notion of an innate Ego driven by a Freudian Death Drive is shown to be yet another redundant fiction. In terms of this newly conceived theory the appearance of the death drive is viewed primarily as the illusory effect of the repetitive cycling of Circuit Mu by individuals frustrated in their failure to find any all-embracing (M)Other. Hence all deaths are construed symbolically and all occur at the time of the acting out of the withdrawal of the imaginary (m)Other's look of accepting approval with some imaginary substitute self. Tragically though in such acting outdeath can become all too real.

So finally then in what does all this theorising end Unlike Jung, since the Self is ultimately considered a fiction, there can be no process of individuation leading to a final state of personhood in which the person truly becomes him or her self - independent of both infantile drives and collective psychology - whole and indivisible and able to stand confidently alone, alongside others. Rather, in terms of this text - there being no true Self to become - the end lies solely in the elimination of the Imaginary subject of the speaking speech through the exposure of the infantile drives and a return to a state of "a thoughtless stillness in the midst of an unended torrent of sensory moments bursting fourth from Emptiness to issue finally in a becoming again of the There before the there of the primeval dualistic split in which all are momentarily placed amidst accepting Bliss" This "oceanic" solipsistic mental state does not however constitute the final end for all us sexually embodied speaking beings, rather now it seems that all our bodily ends lie in not only embracing one (an)Other's ultimate emptiness but also exposing and setting each Other free from one (an)Other's infantile drives whilst playfully perfecting a clear light mind of mem(u)ryful bliss.

So where then are you - amidst blissful Bliss - or are you perhaps busily conforming to the desires of some non-embracing (m)Other or even pursuing some other rival's preferentially favoured (f)Other? Wherever you are, the opportunity now lies presently within your own hands to change all this. Read on and hopefully by the end of the text you will have achieved an understanding of your own limited Truth. Why not visit the author's Web Site: http//www.desperatelyseekinganalysis.co.uk and establish your own Mu mode. You may not like what you discover there just as I did but once you have established your own Mu mode you will have no other option but pursue a passionate involvement with this text. As the author asserts electronically, elsewhere "The paths to all futures now lies with this text." I hate to admit it but he may well be correct.